The lord of keys

What is the key to survival, prosperity and happiness nowadays?

a) Having a "home"
b) Having money in the bank
c) Having health insurance-coverage
d) Having access to a job or client market

What are the modern definitions of "job-less", "money-less", "home-less", "market-less", etc.? For a) people and b) corporations?

How does fit with the "be a good neighbour" CSR approach?

What does "having an "identity"" mean, in today's terms?

Ramblings of an Unemployed Man (very current!)

Conceived and written in September 2004.

1) Text format:

What I need is a job.
But not any kind of job
The right job, the right job, a JOB.

A job that meets my training skills
a job that satisfies me
a job that meets employers' needs
a job that merely fits

How befitting is to work
What a social satisfaction
What a wealth creation function
A job, a job, a job!

What I need is a job.
But not any kind of job
The right job, the right job, a JOB.

How depressing to be poor
How sad to be unsure

Insecurity
Uncertainty
Insanity
Being jobless a profanity!

In today's society
But is that a reality?

What I need is a job.
But not any kind of job
The right job, the right job, a JOB.

How fantastic to be rich
To be high beyond the reach
of misery
of saucery
Pure fantasy!

I don't want to be alone
Looking through the glass dome
The job ads are so many
Wish I could be fit for any
Suitable!
Employable!
Enjoyable!

What I need is a job.
But not any kind of job
The right job, the right job, a JOB.

But is it feasible?
All the experts agree
The job market is a flea
Today's reality

Yesterday's formality
Oh how the world has changed!
Oh my god I feel shortchanged

Global exchanges
Global dynamics

What I need is a job.
But not any kind of job
The right job, the right job, a JOB.

I wish I was trained in ceramics!
I could then create some art
Sell it the highest bidder

Underpaid is a curse
Little money in the purse
A job would be a blessing!
And the need is so pressing!

Like a window dressing!

2) Musical format (enactment, August 2007):

Global Climate: Heat, Floods, Bulls and Bears!

More losses today in the stock market indices (New York, London, etc.). Financiers having TGIF drinks in London pubs after a hard week.

Is it a "crisis" or not? Many opinions and points of view. Optimistic (bullish), realistic, pessimistic (bearish). Only 3 weeks ago, the indices were hitting record highs! Wow! Extreme heat and deaths in Southeastern and Central Europe, extreme rain and floods in the UK, China and elsewhere.

Climates! Financial/Economic and Natural (of nature). Up and down, hot and cold (showers), can the human body and mind take such roller coaster "rides"? Panic? From heat or from "cold", from rain and floods or from debt and risk of money losses?

A lot of money that was fuelling the world economy was to really there? The sub-prime mortgage market growth is at "fault"? Why was this market created? Did it have the required fundamentals?

Hungry for more clients or to maintain growth, because no growth in some mentalities means recession, if you do not move forward, the nature of the system sees that as going backwards!!! Thus a new "instrument" the sub-prime mortgage lending, was created. Higher risk than usual. Packaged and repackaged to be sold to mainstream financial institutions and markets.

So what if there is a crisis there, if the risk has been well spread over many investors? Are the effects primarily psychological? Are the rational investor markets not as rational as they are supposed to be? Are they based on fundamentals or trigger selling happy investors, human or programmes (buying and selling done by software programmes)?

Have the "machines" been given too much role in stock and financial trading in general? But can those "automatic pilots" handle non normal, extraordinary, conditions (as was the case in some aircraft crashes in recent years)? But has the system (avionic or financial trading) become too complicated for "human pilots" or "traffic controllers" to grasp?

It is summer, so stock trading volumes are lower. The sub-prime worries give rise to wider worries. And "support levels" a special financial lingo term that from what I can understand means "signposts" related to "technical" (statistics and modelling) analysis of the stock and other financial assets (as opposed to "fundamental" analysis of each companies potential future performance) having all of the sudden been reached!

Is this beginning to sound like "Matrix" and which part, I. II or III? When is "Neo" going to save the day? Neo-what? Neo-liberalism. Neo-capitalism, Neo-nationalism, Neo-populism, Neo-Socialism or New markets, new clients, new ideas, new theories, new perspectives. Or newly found wisdom? Maybe good old cold blooded patience, such as the one shown by the British in the terror crisis in July 2005? Survival of the calm and collected? The philosophised?

It is only money! Yes but many people's "livelihoods" depend of that money and many people invest on behalf of others, and how can they explain to their clients the "nature of the beast"? Was the final consumer of financial tools. behind all the institutional and other professional, the John and Joan Smith, told of the down as well as the up potential of the game, or when these things are sold, the up side is oversold and the down side left out?

Back to the bottom line? How many people really grasp these days even the main elements of the financial global systemics?

I am afraid that much of the system is based on trust or faith or greed or confidence/hope and not full understanding of the risks involved, by the voter, sorry, I meant the individual/citizen/investor!!! How rational and cool-handed is the so called "rational investor" after all?

How much heat or rain can the average citizen take too?

People are not dummies. Thus, can they survive those crash tests?

"You have to be able to put everything into perspective". No, that is not a quote I heard on TV related to climate or finance. It was a sports related one! But sounded like it could have been about the weather or the markets!

So, how many people are able to put everything into perspective these days, when everything is so chaotic (ie huge, complicated, global)?

"I do not understand and I am not interested in finance and economics" says to me, often, a friend. Well, what you do not perceive as a threat cannot hurt you can it? Well, it can and it doesn but in some cases ignorance is bliss. This may be one of them and it may actually "save the day", ie the system! Life is so simple and yet so complicated and yet so precious. And the best things in life are free, as long as one can afford them, right?

Better go read some Plato. They say that this calms people down!!!! LOL And thankfully the air conditioning works! Things could always be worse! Always look at the bright side of life! Humour and philosophy will get us through! To where? That is another story!

World Trade Talks: Any potential for agreement?

A new effort to complete the Doha round of World Trade talks is launched by the WTO. Delegations have until September 3, date of a meeting, to consider the possibility of reaching compromises in areas of dispute.

The US administration, while expressing that completion of the talks is its top world trade priority, has expressed reservations over the draft working texts.

Since July 1, any WTO agreement the US administration agrees to will have to also pass from the US Congress, which may ask for amendments, not merely say yes or no (as was the case under the "fast track" powers of the US president that expired at the end of June). That any WTO agreement of all its members will require not only the agreement of the Republican pro free trade US administration but the US Congress where Democrats have a majority both in the House and the Senate since last year's midterm elections.

Thus the potential for a WTO agreement seems a tad complicated. But nothing is impossible. Probable?

27 July 2007

On "Open Britain"

A couple of key points (from memory)and thoughts of mine resulting from the speech the new British Foreign Minister gave at the Chatham House in July 2007:

International Relations are not conducted only by governments these days, but business and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) as well.

"Open Britain" is the goal. In the 21st century, countries with "open" social, political and other systemics (eg business and economic?) not only to organisations but people too, will do the best.

Thoughts: Open (or Global) Britain seems indeed a permanent strategy of the UK's political leaderships (it is the EU which is not). But are the citizens and the media "in agreement" (or on the same boat as the "globalists") with this strategy and ready to deal with its pros and cons? Plus is Britain "risk converse" or in other words, not afraid to undertake risks in the pursuit of "returns"?

------------------

Some more thoughts of mine on the concept of "Open Britain" that the new Foreign Minister referred to in his speech at the Chatham House, July 19, 2007:

Britain is indeed an amalgam of "roots" (I do not wish to use other terminology).

For example, last year there was news reporting of a study of the DNA "mapping" of modern Britons that found an immense variety of DNA traces.

In spite of its island geography, compared to "continental Europe" (aka "the Continent"), Britain was a very popular "destination" of various invaders over the centuries. I personally find the history of Britain, from BC times to date, amazingly complicated and thus interesting!

From Boudicca, whose sculpture can be found on the banks of the Thames, to the legend of King Arthur to its colonial activity around the World (eg India), the impact of Winston Churchill's leadership on Britain (and the outcome of WWII), British history is very useful in understanding modern British and European as well global dynamics.

The migration of UK jobs (albeit exaggerated as a recent report finds, see relevant recent post in this blog) to native-level English speakers in India is one "small" example.

For food for thought for European Union policy makers:
Why do most intra-EU "migration"-mobility is towards Britain (I have called this dynamic "The EU "works" in Britain")?

Which football league is today more multinational (in global not just European nationalities) than the English Premier League?

Which other football (soccer) superpower has had a non-native National Coach?

Where did Eric Cantona's super talent find ground to flourish?

Britain may, indeed, often irritate EU systemics with the anti-Brussels rhetoric of many British media, political forces and citizen reactions, but that does not mean that Britain is closed to the world, on the contrary, to some extent, I think, Britain's "Euro-scepticism" is a reflection of its scepticism of some EU related "Euro-centrism".

In the past, the British stance on the EU/Europe issue has made me consider the possibility that Britain is not "open", that it has an "island mentality".

Maybe that holds for some Britons, but for most, in my view, Britain is neither better suited for a state a US of Europe (something that Sir Winston said in the aftermath of WWII, ie that Europe needs a "sort of" United State of Europe) or a potential 51st state of the USA (as some claim they would like) role.

Britain 2007+:

Modern Britain is made up of fascinating and complicated systemics and has a certain "global player" mentality, not in a traditional "colonial" type of mentality, but in a dynamic "converse to globalisation" one. A globalisation that covers much more than just economic or trade affairs.

The current Prime Minister, who appointed the new Foreign Minister to his cabinet, made a speech last year at some City related conference that has resided in my mind. He spoke of
a Britain who is not afraid to take risks.

I also still recall Tony Blair's speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg last July, at the beginning of the UK's Presidency of the EU.

Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's political and personal profiles are not identical. Neither, I think, is their "mindset" re Britain's internal (socio-economic and general) "model" and strategic thinking re Britain's role in the world. But the latter have common foundations. I am not sure how representative they are of the grass roots of the Labour Party or exactly how the mindsets and models and strategies of the Tory leader David Cameron and the LibDems differ from the "Open Britain" model. Food for further thought.

Modern Britain is possibly already the most "open" country in the world (more than the US of decades past) and to the extent that the theory that "open countries" will lead the world arena in the next decades is accurate, Britain seems to be already leading the field.

Comparisons: Open US?

But the US, I think, has not said its final word. The post 2008 period in the US, whether led by a Democrat or a Republican, will have a bearing on the "Open USA" model and strategy selection.

In varying degrees and with emphasis on different aspects (economic, social, cultural, etc), John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are, according to my perception "open" to an "Open USA" model of thinking. We shall see.

We definitely live in interesting times.

======================================================

"England is England and we are strangers"
Anne of Cleves, the German 4th wife and then sister (!) of Henry the VIII.

=======================================================

Relationships: Friends, Laws of Attraction and Logic

What are the "laws" of attraction? Can they be analysed?

Attraction is too much of a complex and complicated and unpredictable "thing" to analyse using the rational tools we use to analyse other "things" in life.

And people are people, not glass thingies to be categorised/labeled as "friends" or something else and put on the "right" shelve and stay there for "antique" or "collection" purposes.

Logic may be a tool to think and make decisions, but it also takes logic, IMO, to figure out that some things are not to be logically analysed, ie fall out of the realm of logic and its tools of analysis.

German consumer spending down in May

Consumer spending in Germany was down in May compared to April

USA: Oil Prices above USD 70!

Oil prices in the US market rise above $70, the highest in the last 10 months!

German economic and employment modeling

Food for thought: There is job creation in Germany, amid economic growth. But what is the max amount of jobs Germany's economic model can have?

USA: Immigration Policy

The US Senate has blocked an immigration draft law ("bill"), which is/was one of President Bush's key policy initiatives.

12 million illegal immigrants live in the US today.

EU Treaty: Towards a "Reform" Treaty in July

So the EU Summit of heads of states and governments in the EU has decided that a "Reform Treaty" will be drafted by an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) in July.

Elements:

The new Treaty will not replace the previous EU Treaties, in order to keep its volume down (the previous failed draft of the Treaty consolidated all previous EU Treaties thus was too big and that led to misinterpretations of its nature)

No new EU symbols will be introduced (that gave the idea of a Super-State)

Voluntary withdrawal of a member state from the EU will be possible under the new Treaty. Sounds reasonable!

Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) based decisions will need the support of 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU's population but the system will be introduced after 2014 and phazed over 3 years (to 2017), due to Poland's wishes.

QMV will be extended to cover up to 50 new policy areas, primarily related to police and judicial matters. The UK has been given the right to opt out of criminal matters and police co-operation!

Due to the UK's and some other member's insistence, national veto power will be maintained in the areas of:

culture

defence,

foreign affairs

taxation

social security

There will be a president of the European Council, elected by EU leaders for a 2.5 year term. This means no more rotating of the Presidency to all EU states every 6 months!

Instead of an "EU Foreign Minister" there will be a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", acting as one of the VPs of the European Commission!

As of 2014, only two-thirds of the member states will appoint a Commissioner in the "Commissioners' College" in any 5-year term.

The European Union will have the status of a legal person.

To assuage fears that it is developing into a super-state, the IGC has been tasked to agree on the following declaration: "The conference confirms that the fact that the European Union has a legal personality will not in any way authorise the Union to legislate or to act beyond the competences conferred upon it by the member states in the treaties."


CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Britain has been allowed to opt out of a 50-article charter containing an exhaustive list of well-established rights - from freedom of speech and religion to the right to shelter, education and fair working conditions.

The UK was concerned at the charter's impact on business and its legal system.

Moreover, the charter will not become part of the treaty - it will just be referred to.


NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
The period given to national parliaments to examine draft legislative texts and to give a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity will be extended from six to eight weeks.

National parliaments may demand, if a certain threshold is reached, that the European Commission re-examine a draft act they deem to be an encroachment on their national competences.


This was a major concern for the Netherlands.


SOLIDARITY
A reference has been included to EU solidarity in the event of an energy supply problem.


This came at the insistence of Lithuania and Poland, concerned at their own high dependence on Russian hydrocarbons.

On the new capitalism

New capitalism is the capitalism of ideas and intellect.

And it is a free market. I do not thus see, as a centrist liberal ("libdem" in Europe in ideology) why my grand father and family are less reliable sources than any other, person or organisational entity, in a truly (rather than nominally) free and non-oligopolistic market (agora) for ideas and knowledge, especially given the subject of Civil War in Greece. As per Corporatism, see Max Weber.

PS. Capitalism is not about winning or losing either. Sports are. And a corporation's mission is not to win but to maximize shareholder value. Many people who criticise capitalism and corporations fail to realise that, IMO. They think in terms of "war" or "sports" and they transfer this thinking, faultily, IMO, in other areas. My way of thinking and analysis is a product of my MIT education.

Social Dynamics: Mellowing Out

"When I mellow, I ripe and then I rot"

(Woody Allen's character in "Annie Hall", 1977, 30 years ago)

That was then, what is now, in 2007? Do people get a chance to "mellow out" in these just-in-time, "fast food, fast everything". To deliberate? Is "mellowing out" or "hyperness" the way to live today?

EU: Competition the French way and other national "customs"

During the EU Summit which aimed to promote a new Draft Treaty for the EU, a reported French effort to weaken the foundations of the principle of free market competition in the EU (and to thus allow states more room for giving state aid to "national champions") seems to have been averted.

Of course, France is not the only EU member to have its own specific a-la-carte demands or wishes in the EU.

Eg. the UK does not want a common Foreign Policy and more EU competences in taxation issues.

Poland, one of the 6 "large" countries members of the 27 member EU, wants the members' votes in the EU Councils to be determined via a square root of each country's population calculation.

Etc, etc, etc!

The Chinese Capitalism

China: The government is trying to manage the index of the stock exchange, in order to cool the extreme demand of recent months and to manage stock prices to realistic levels. This policy is part of an overall strategy of managed capitalism and an effort to keep the economy from overheating.

1. This time her policy is being implemented by having state-owned companies issue more stocks (shares),

2. Recently, it raised (tripled) the tax on stock transactions.

Management: The name of the game = Access

I have written it before and I think it is as current and key as ever before today:

The key tool in survival and prosperity in the world today, not just in business but in almost everything is not access to capital and other traditional sources of "power".

It is access to markets, agoras in general (economic or other, even .... dating, visiting relatives, social activities, etc, etc).

You can have access to capital (venture or loans), ease to set up a new company in a few minutes, etc, etc, etc, a great product or service to "sell", but without real access to a suitable market for the said product or service, it is no use, IMO (in my opinion).

What are the key elements of "real access"? Technical/physical and regulatory and "bureaucratic" and marketing/business related.

Needs or Wants? Questions

• How much more volatility can a person nowadays handle?


• How much "globalization" and of what type?


• Do national laws, public policies and regulations make the dynamics and systemics of the environment people live their lives in more or less stable, do they reduce volatility or do they increase it even more?


• How much regulation is enough regulation, when do rules become ineffective towards the need of Society and people? Where is the equilibrium, the right amount of regulation?


• Are people today tied down by an antiquated approach to "ownership" and "safety nets"?


• Can and should we separate needs from wants? Individuals, policy makers, thinkers, marketeers, economists, etc?


• How many people fall under and can have their decisions/choices "simulated" by models which assume basically "rational" thinking and behavior


• How many people today have the capacity to be "globally minded", and what is more, "globally aware"?


• Is the Earth too big for people to be "aware of the whole"? Is partial global awareness good or bad?


• What is the value of ignorance? Can people have enough real control over their lives to satisfy that need or is it merely a matter of "perception" of "awareness" or "control"?


• Is there a difference between partial global awareness and parochialism (in a traditional or new definition of the term)? What is that difference and what are its effects?


• Is freedom today just another word for "nothing to lose"?


• Is traditional middle class - bourgeois thinking suitable for the needs of the times?


• Do the things we own wind up "owning" us?


• What are people saving for today (a nest egg for a rainy day)? What are they consuming on/for? Needs or Wants?

Dynamics: German social policies

There is a very complex system of sectoral, professional, federal and lander-level, sets of wage agreement, mostly negotiated between employers federations and trade unions. If I am not mistaken, until now, Germany does not a federal minimum wage (eg the US has one (recently revised up) and so does the UK (introduced by Blair), both set by government, not the social partners).

In the grand coalition, the Social Democrats wanted a federal one. The CDU preferred the sectoral ones. The relevant debate (national vs sectoral vs professional vs none) is not exclusive to Germany policy circles. I am not sure what the "compromise" agreement Mrs Merkel struck and the media spoke of is. But she did find one!

The same thing applies to a compromise re the social security contributions (a small rise).

Note: The VAT in Germany was raised in the beginning of the year.

Single

Single Market
Market for Singles
Sound of Jingles
Dynamics of Jungles

Free Trade Area
Fair Trade Rules
Global Trade-Offs
National Trade Deficits

Mobility
Employability
Utility
Marketability

Free Market
Market of the Free
Duty Free
Rights and Duties

Las Vegas
Monte Carlo
Casinos
Casino Economics

London
New York
Metropoles
Clusterpoles

St. Tropez
Venice Beach
Hardbodies
Bodybuilding

Building liaisons
Forging links
Cooperation
Unification

Globalization
What a sensation
Single Market Creation
Realistic Expectation?

Advancement: Back to the Basics?

From a recent discussion:

Firstly, what do mean by "advancement"? Technological or logical/intellectual or artistic or economic/GNP related?

How did the Greeks in Ancient Athens etc (eg Pericles' times) produce philosophy and culture and thinking in general, notably on personal and political ethos that is still relevant in 2007?

In any case, recent awareness of threats to our survival (climate change, asteroid risks, pandemics, mega-quakes, etc.) and our modern and techno way of life may (I say may, not sure) requires us, while keeping the basics of our "way of life" (which are they, that is the question!!!), to go back to the basics and rid our daily lives of acquired habits (not central/core to the genuine fundamentals of our way of life) which harm us as the world we live in (eg energy overconsumption, esp. CO2 emitting one).

One could only speculate what the daily life of the American and the European will look like in 20 or 30 years, if we decide to take better care of the world we and are children and their children will live in.

So, what do we mean by "advancement"?

Back to basics and simpler and less materialist , more intellectual products consuming lives? Food for thought!

Management: Global SMEs

Globalization will, I argue, be better embraced by the world public opinion when small and medium size companies (SMEs) in the WTO member countries feel that they have a reasonable chance to grow and prosper in it.

I think that what the world needs is man, many, more "globally active SMEs".

Note: Of course "globalization", "capitalism" and "liberalism" mean different things to different people not only around the world but also within specific countries. In the presence of such absence of commonly agreed definitions of these and other terms, these terms and the notions and systems they stand for will continue to "suffer". Globalization, capitalism and liberalism as well as market economics are thought to be the systemics "in power" in most of the WTO countries today! Are they? How "global", "capitalist", "liberal" or "market economy based" are for example the United States today? France? Germany? The UK? The EU?

European Union: Transportation "Problems"

January 3, 2007


The "traveling salesman problem" is a well known "problem" in transportation and logistics. Europe's transportation problem is no less complicated. So is the whole world's.

Air Transportation:

In an era of an apparent recurring economic nationalism, how consistent are the US limitations on foreign ownership of US based airlines with the concepts and supposed trend of globalization and free trade, etc?

Is the air transportation activity a by nature "physical" oligopoly and thus a strategic public policy sector? In other words, what justifies such regulatory constraints such as the US airline ownership rules in this 21st century? Many replies can be offered, some economic, some safety related, some post 9/11 security related, etc. For example, in some countries, fleets have to be subject to the option of being "drafted" for military purposes in case of war! But are any of those replies sufficient to justify a general "no foreign nationals ownership or control of US based airlines" rationale? Without any "favored nations" clauses (as in other activities).

Across the Atlantic, in Europe, 14 years after the Single Market, the EU is not having much success in consolidating airlines and other "national" champions into more viable at a world stage structures! Most national airlines are still national, in spite of trends and dynamics and the launching of a variety of successful budget airlines operating at European level!

"Open Skies" are not that visible in the skies of Europe and the US, and that is not solely a result of post-911 dynamics.

Rail:

As of Tuesday (1 January 2007) all rail freight services in the EU, inside and between member states, are open to competition.

Meanwhile, in the UK, recent price increases in the unregulated portions of rail activity have caused reactions.

We "want the railways to grow" says the UK's Department for Transport. So do the European Commission and many other parties and organizations of the Citizens' Society in the UK and in Europe. Yet road transportation continues to be the most attractive, price-wise and flexibility-wise, both passenger and freight related! Many claim that this is because road transportation externalizes many of its costs to the "environment" and thus these need to be internalized, via various policies and schemes! This policy view is not new, but its results are still to be examined!

Systemics of transportation:

A key strategic or even philosophical policy question is: Is transportation, of people or goods, a key element of globalization? Yes or No? And if Yes, is that a good thing, yes or no? Is mobility a wanted policy goal anymore, as it used to be, or has the tide changed? Is mobility still viewed as a "driver" of freedom or not?

These are indeed tough policy issues. maybe Gordian knots. But they are in urgent need of some kind of consensus based agreement! Because in this day and age, of uncertainty, policies need to be as clear and as certain as possible, else they make our lives and our decisions harder than they already are, rather than easier (which case, what is their utility?).

So, does "Europe" have a comprehensive policy view on transportation? After all, transportation is a "common EU policy" area, unlike many others (e.g. employment or economic policy)!

Well, it does not seem so! And there are many parties eager for a clear and comprehensive transportation policy, because we do live in an era when transportation is much more crucial to everyone's life than (possibly) ever before (companies and people). Note: The same applies to telecoms, but in telecoms the effect is much more evident than in transportation!

Production and distribution: two key parameters in the economic activity, with a vast and complex set of parameters and effects, to users, clients and providers and workers!

Who can decide what is "rational transportation" and what is not? Are transportation modes, by nature, suitable for pure market dynamics or does the public sector have a role? E.g. in infrastructure "hungry" transportation modes. And in "pollution rich" ones!

The European and world public opinion needs policy makers to decide and communicate their strategic or philosophical stance on the matter: Is transportation a good or a bad thing, after all? A problem or a solution "vehicle" to life's core issues of the citizen/voter?

Such a strategic or systemic stance is needed, and it needs to be quite clear! Is transportation to remain the public/mass good and everyone's right it has become in recent times, or do environmental or security or infrastructure cost constraints make limits on this right (even through pricing) a necessity? That is a key question!!!

To produce or to transport? Is the public affairs backlash against transportation driven, by some quarters, as part of a clever anti-globalization strategy? Are we, in effect, being told or forced to rethink the axiom of "economies of scale in production, global distribution"? Are we?

Is a core part of this re-emerging"economic nationalism" a covert or de-facto return to a "produce locally, sell locally" scheme? Just a thought!

Soul Searching

Rotten tomatoes
Ripe apples
Green acres
Blue oceans

Rotten souls
Cheap perfumes
Green hearts
Red faces

Rotten dreams
Cheap thrills
Green bucks
Maroon colors

Rotten memories
Cheap mementos
Green leaves
Black ties

Memories were made
to fade for a reason!